International Law Research
ISSN / EISSN : 1927-5234 / 1927-5242
Current Publisher: Canadian Center of Science and Education (10.5539)
Total articles ≅ 91
Latest articles in this journal
International Law Research, Volume 10; doi:10.5539/ilr.v10n1p195
Modernising the Constitution - A Courts Act.
Published: 24 February 2021
International Law Research, Volume 10; doi:10.5539/ilr.v10n1p185
The jurisdictional immunity of international organizations is a necessity for them to independently perform their functions and achieve their purposes. Therefore, the international community generally grants absolute jurisdictional immunity to international organizations. China has always advocated the position of absolute jurisdictional immunity, however, in the AIIB Agreement and the Headquarters Agreement between China and AIIB, China turn to the view that AIIB only share restrictive jurisdictional immunity. The change of China’s opinion on AIIB is not only the result of the development of international organizations immunity, but also the result of AIIB’s functional necessity. The fact that AIIB only enjoys restrictive jurisdictional immunity in China makes AIIB possible to be sued in China’s domestic courts. If the eligible plaintiff bring a lawsuit against AIIB in China, the courts could handle the case in accordance with domestic laws, the AIIB Agreement and the Headquarters Agreement to alleviate the dilemma of China’s lack of international organization law.
Published: 12 February 2021
International Law Research, Volume 10; doi:10.5539/ilr.v10n1p101
Modernising the Constitution - A Parliament Act.
Published: 23 November 2020
International Law Research, Volume 10; doi:10.5539/ilr.v10n1p1
Terrorism seriously endangers world peace and security. In order to achieve the goal of effectively combating international terrorism, we must promote the establishment of a multi-level model of anti-terrorism cooperation. The current legal models of international counter-terrorism cooperation mainly include global counter-terrorism cooperation, regional counter-terrorism cooperation and bilateral counter-terrorism cooperation. Global counter-terrorism cooperation led by the United Nations is the most important form of counter-terrorism cooperation. The UN has set up a Counter-terrorism Committee and a series of treaties. The United Nations demands that States should prevent and stop the financing of terrorist ACTS; Criminalizes any person or thing that, by any means, directly or indirectly, provides or raises funds for terrorist activities; (b) Immediately freeze the assets of individuals and entities that facilitate, finance or participate in terrorist ACTS; The provision of any funds and financial assets and related services to individuals and entities assisting, financing or participating in terrorist ACTS is prohibited. Regional counter-terrorism cooperation refers to the cooperation between geographically adjacent countries to combat terrorism, which is an important part of international counter-terrorism cooperation. The main regional anti-terrorism cooperation organizations are: Association of Southeast Asian Nations, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, European Union, Organization of American States, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Bilateral anti-terrorism cooperation refers to the cooperation between two parties in order to form a joint anti-terrorism force. Bilateral cooperation can be between states or between states and regional organizations. Bilateral cooperation in flexible and diverse forms is also an important form of counter-terrorism cooperation.
Published: 23 November 2020
International Law Research, Volume 10; doi:10.5539/ilr.v10n1p13
Modernising the Constitution - A Crown Act.
Published: 29 October 2020
International Law Research, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ilr.v9n1p105
Reviewer Acknowledgements for International Law Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020
Published: 15 October 2020
International Law Research, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ilr.v9n1p85
International investment law has increasingly come under attack because it does not put host states on par with foreign investors. Foreign investors can evoke broad investment rights and pursue investment arbitration. The threat of substantial arbitral awards can result in host states not enacting policies, regulations, laws or reaching decisions, despite them being needed in order to protect a variety of important public interests. The concern is, therefore, that international investment law, including the investor-state dispute resolution system, causes a regulatory chill. The paper examines how the asymmetric relationship between foreign investors and host states can be remedied, so that trust in international investment law is strengthened and its legitimacy crisis is overcome. One core issue with international investment law is that the customary international minimum standard and its therein subsumed full protection and security, and fair and equitable treatment and compensation principles are inherently vague, thereby contributing to the overprotection of foreign investors. Arbitral cases further highlight how regulatory changes can result in host states incurring liability and thus enable foreign corporations to shift potential costs and risks. International, and national solutions to prevent the regulatory chill of international investment agreements are spelled out.
Published: 15 October 2020
International Law Research, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ilr.v9n1p100
This paper investigates the impact of filing appeals on the parliamentary elections running the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It, thus, aims to ensure free and fair elections governed by the justice and the transparency principles which pave the way for candidates and voters to appeal, if needed, during the parliamentary electoral process as considered one of the most important guarantees the legislator vouches for in the Election Law. In addition to the conclusion and recommendations, the study tackles the theme of parliamentary appeals from different perspectives: its definition and relation to legality principle; the role of courts in judging such sort of appeals; the criteria of this appeals and appellants; and the appeals in the parliamentary electoral polls; nomination, and membership validity.
International Law Research, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ilr.v9n1p77
The manufacturer's liability for defective products has remained almost unmodified since 1985 when Directive 85/374/EEC (=PLD) was enacted. Perhaps new technology based on artificial intelligence (=AI) could bring about a turning point in the regulation if concepts such as "product" and "defect" or aspects such as "grounds of liability", the so-called "development risks defense", and the "solidarity" are reconsidered. The Group of Experts on Liability and New Technologies (=NTF), in its “Liability for AI and other emerging digital technologies” Report, recommends, inter alia, the regulation of two different civil liability regimes: strict liability and fault-based liability. Thus, it will be necessary to determine precisely the cases to which these regimes apply and how to deal with “uncertain causation”. The alleviation of the victim’s burden of proof should be considered. From the various documents being published, it appears that the producer’s strict liability will remain as the main liability rule, but it will be combined -as the NFT suggests- in the case of the breach of a duty of care with a fault-based liability rule. This approach leaves some open questions, i.e., how to properly combine both grounds of liability in the domain of products that cause damages. In my view, the liability regime suggested by the NTF is far more complicated that the regime which distinguishes three types of defects that are often stressed: the defect of design, the defect of manufacturing, and the defect of information.
International Law Research, Volume 9; doi:10.5539/ilr.v9n1p56
Transnational Corporations (TNCs) exploit natural resources, whether renewable as in the case of forests, fisheries and agricultural products or non-renewable as in the case of minerals or petroleum, in developing countries through their subsidiaries. TNCs’ exploitation of forests and acquisition of intellectual property rights in plants and animal breeding, based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples developed over millennia, are in conflict with the rights of indigenous peoples to their territories, resources and traditional knowledge. TNCs also profit from conflict by trading natural resources that prolong wars; colluding with repressive governments to pervert political processes within a State; aiding and abetting crimes against humanity; and flagrantly violating human rights. This article explores the areas of conflict outlined above and examines the efficacy of the mechanisms for the control of TNCs whether legally binding or not. It is suggested that the only effective way of making TNCs accountable for their human rights violations and aiding and abetting crimes against humanity is the establishment of an international court with jurisdiction over corporations.